On December 10, 1948, on a cold winter night, former Minnesota Governor Theodore Christianson suffered a heart attack trying to start his automobile after it had stalled on the roadside. Christianson had a distinguished career as a state legislator, governor, and a member of the United States House of Representatives. Prior to entering elective office, he was a lawyer, but also editor and publisher of the Dawson Sentinel newspaper.
Christianson was also a student of history, and he wrote a five-volume history of Minnesota, Minnesota The Land of Sky-Tinted Waters. A legislative colleague described Christianson’s speeches filled with historical references. “His speeches were masterpieces, classics in construction and filled with quotations from Greek and Latin scholars,” recalled Minnesota state Senator Charles Orr.
Orr also reflected that Christianson “was inclined to be stubborn,” which also complimented his political philosophy. During his time as a state legislator and as governor, Christianson made fiscal conservatism, or “economy in government,” a priority. He campaigned on slogans such as “More Ted, Less Taxes” and was given the nickname “Tightwad Ted.”
In 1928, speaking before a group of banking and business leaders in Cleveland, Ohio, Governor Christianson spoke about the importance of fiscal conservatism at all levels of government. Christianson titled his remarks “Putting Four-Wheel Brakes on the Ship of State,” which was an analogy to the fast-paced automobile culture of the 1920s and the need for drivers to slow down.
“Now, unfortunately, all of the joy riding of the present generation hasn’t been done in automobiles. There has been financial joy riding as well and there has been no end of politicians who have been stepping on the gas,” stated Christianson.
Just as drivers could be reckless and out of control so were politicians too eager to press down on the “gas pedal” of spending. It was not just public officials who were eager to increase spending, but communities, organizations, and individuals that believed they could benefit from what government could deliver.
“Every organization existing for the purpose merely of boosting and booming, every community seeking an appropriation for a new post office or a new state institution, every politician or statesman, if you please, who had made the discovery that he could get more votes in the ballot box by securing state aid of Federal aid for some purpose or other, every organization of men or women laboring under the obsession that it could reform the world by creating a new government bureau, has been a self-starter, and unfortunately, we haven’t been equipped with efficient brakes,” stated Christianson.
Therefore, he argued that the “increase in expenditures of government has been one of the most outstanding and disturbing developments of the last few decades.” Christianson reminded his listeners that “during the period of thirty-six years , the burden of government in this country had increased ten-fold” as a result of spending. By growth of government Christianson referred to local, state, and federal. As an example, he stated that “state expenditures have doubled since 1919 and they have trebled since 1913.”
Just as with today, a correlation can be found between the increase in government spending resulting in the enlargement of government. Further, Christianson argued that what is driving the spending at the federal and state levels is the demand for government services.
“We try to have our problems solved by governmental bureaus at Washington and at the state capitol, manned by newly fledged collegians who are trying to tell experienced people how they should conduct their affairs and run their business,” noted Christianson. To a certain extent Christianson was pushing back on the Progressive movement and the more radical Farmer-Labor and Non-Partisan League organizations that advocated greater expansion of government.
As a consequence, Christianson argued, the expansion of government “led to a multiplicity of laws.” In addition, he argued that “we have about all the regulation we need now and that whenever anybody proposes to establish a new governmental bureau or new governmental activity for the purpose of regulating, controlling or directing somebody, we should at least put up a sign, ‘Stop, Look and Listen.’”
“Have you noticed that almost every new law that is passed results in the creation of some new state or federal agency,” asked Christianson?
“Stop, look, and listen” is good advice for government to follow. Christianson advised the Minnesota Legislature not to be hasty in voting for legislation. “‘When in doubt, vote No,’ might well be emblazoned over the door of every legislative hall,” stated Christianson.
In his Inaugural Message in 1929 he reminded the legislature that the work of the “session will not be judged by the number of laws passed, but by the care we take in passing them.” “Therefore, let quality rather than quantity be our goal. In legislation, haste makes waste,” noted Christianson.
Christianson lamented the “great volume of statutory law,” and he argued that there should be a “legislative session devoted to repealing laws.” If that were achieved, Christianson argued, “it would be a real distinction for the 1929 legislature if it could be said of it that it sinned less than any of its predecessors.”
Fundamentally, Christianson understood the root cause of the problem was not necessarily with politicians or their spending, but rather it was a cultural problem. “So I suspect if we want to stop this increase in the cost of government the first thing that we will have to decide to do is get along with less government or at least to put a stop to it when somebody tries to increase its functions and activities unduly,” argued Christianson.
In other words, if people want lower tax bills, then they need to make less demands upon government. Nevertheless, Christianson believed that policymakers could exercise policies to limit spending and debt.
“Now what are we going to do about it? Is there any way in which this increase in public expenditures can be halted or must we face complacently a constant increase in this burden of government,” asked Christianson?
Christianson argued that that “there are forces and factors over which the government does have control,” to limit spending. These fiscal tools included reforming and reducing the size and scope of government, budget reforms to scrutinize spending, and limit government debt. These were all needed to “apply the brakes to government spending.”
Christianson’s fiscal policies reflected those of Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Both Harding and Coolidge placed a priority on limiting spending, lowering tax rates, and paying down debt. In 1921, President Harding reformed the federal budget process with the Budget and Accounting Act, which created Bureau of the Budget with Charles G. Dawes and Herbert Lord serving as the first Directors.
Both Harding and Coolidge required their administration to attend regular meetings of the Business Organization of the Government, which were orchestrated by both Dawes and Lord. Harding and Coolidge would often attend and even address the meeting. The objective was to get the entire administration aligned with the fiscal policy objectives, which included limiting spending. Dawes would compare the task of cutting spending to having a “toothpick with which to tunnel Pike’s Peak.”
Christianson was supportive of the fiscal policies of the Harding and Coolidge administrations. He believed that their budget reform efforts should be replicated at the state level to reduce spending. “I said that the states and their municipal subdivisions have been the principal offenders, and that whereas the cost of federal government in this country has been reduced the cost of state government has continued to increase during the last few years,” noted Christianson.
“Why is it that the federal government can reduce its expenditures or at least keep them from increasing and the states cannot,” asked Christianson? The answer according to Christianson was following the example of Harding and Coolidge.
In reference to the Budget and Accounting Act, the Bureau of the Budget, and the regular meetings of the Business organization of Government, Christianson argued that governors should follow a similar example. “President Coolidge,” stated Christianson, “stands for a policy of economy he can, by handing his orders down through the members of his cabinet, reach every agency of the government and compel economy.”
The President had an advantage over governors because Christianson argued that governors do not have the executive power, and they are “only one of several state executives.” Christianson argues that even with the power of veto, a governor is still at a disadvantage because “he can strike out an item of a legislative appropriation, he has no power to reduce it…” Regarding the legislatures ability to limit spending, Christianson was also hesitant. “You might say that the legislature in the state has the power to control expenditures by all means, but I challenge that statement,” stated Christianson.
For a legislature to be successful in conservative budgeting and limiting spending, Christianson argued that “it depends on the members of the legislature.” Finally, whether in the executive or legislative branch, plus the special interests, Christianson argues that everyone “believes that his own activity is more important than any other activity in the state and he sees so many thousands of uses for which he could use the money.”
While Harding and Coolidge were cutting tax rates, reducing spending, and paying down the national debt at the federal level, Christianson was doing the same in Minnesota. In 1924, Christianson argued that the “demand for a halting of the increase in taxation and public indebtedness is making itself felt, not only in Minnesota, but throughout the nation.”
As a former legislator and chair of the Appropriations Committee, Christianson understood the budget and also the numerous special interests that were fighting for more spending. He believed two of the largest economic policy problems consisted of reducing the tax burden and cutting spending. Christianson argued in 1924 that “appropriations have been increasing in Minnesota—increasing at a rapid rate during the last ten years.”
Christianson reflected a conservatism that placed a priority on fiscal prudence and resisted the radical political philosophy of progressivism that was a growing force in the Midwest from the Farmer-Labor Party and the Non-Partisan League.
For Christianson, reducing the size and scope of government was a top priority. In 1924, he stated that “not only has there been a marked tendency toward too much government, but an undue enlargement of the personnel of government.”
In his Inaugural Address, Christianson urged the legislature to refrain from excessive spending on the state budget by following these six measures:
These recommendations, or “principles,” were necessary for not just the fiscal health of Minnesota, but also protecting the interests of the taxpayer.
One of the major government reform initiatives that occurred under his watch was the 1925 Reorganization Act, which made the state government more efficient by limiting bureaucracy. The Act created the “Big Three,” which was a three-person commission of Administration and Finance, which centered on reforming statewide accounting systems, reviewing agency and department budget requests, the approval or denial of state funds. Christianson and the “Big Three” also encouraged the use of the veto to limit spending.
The 1925 Reorganization Act “adopted a new scheme of organization of the government of Minnesota.” However, Christianson argued that consolidating departments and agencies was not enough to limit government or spending. “We consolidated a few departments but don’t believe that the mere consolidation of state departments is going to produce very much economy in itself because all that such consolidation does is to make a regrouping of the activity and all the activity is still there,” noted Christianson.
To add “teeth” to reorganization, Christianson created a budget system to review spending. Christianson argued that Minnesota’s budget system was “sufficiently unique,” and that the “budget system is not a mere compilation of departmental requests, it isn’t merely an attempt to scale down the departmental requests for legislature. It goes farther than that.”
Christianson described the process of the Budget Bureau once the legislature had given approval. Once the legislature had approved appropriations the Budget Bureau did not just allow agencies and departments to spend at will. Christianson stated that “we have a string on that money so that before the head of the Bureau or Department that enjoys that appropriation can spend a dollar of it, he must get specific approval for the expenditure from the Budget Board.”
This provided additional oversight into spending. “In other words, every three months the head of a state department must file with the Budget Board a requisition for the part of its appropriation that it desires to spend during the next three months,” stated Christianson. Also, agencies or departments could not use those dollars until they received approval from the Budget Board.
In reviewing spending, Christianson stated that the Budget Board could either approve, allow, or reduce the spending. To illustrate, Christianson described a hypothetical if a department requested to purchase ten new automobiles and specifically requested that they be Cadillacs.
This request would come before the Budget Board, and it would scrutinize whether the ten Cadillacs were necessary. Christianson stated that after the review the Board would inform the department that the “only business we have is to watch you fellows and we have decided that you will get along with six new automobiles for the present.”
In addition, Christianson stated that the Board would “have made a survey of the relative efficiency and economy of operation for various motor cars for your inspectors to go around the state with and have concluded they don’t need Cadillacs. We have been standardizing on a cheaper car. Instead of getting ten Cadillacs, we are going to buy six Fords. And you will get six Fords. And you will like it, after a while.”
Christianson admitted that the Budget Board did not win many friends and the budget system causes friction. This was positive for both government and taxpayers. Christianson argued that “any budget system that is worth the paper the law which created it is written on will cause friction, because if there is no friction between the people who want to spend the taxpayers’ money and those who are charged with the responsibility of saving it, it is a pretty sure thing that it is the tax-spenders and not the taxpayers interests which are being taken care of.”
In validating his argument, Christianson argued that federal Bureau of the Budget “caused friction in Washington.” Limiting spending in the Harding and Coolidge administrations was not an easy process. “A great many people down there don’t like General Lord. Some of them don’t like Coolidge,” stated Christianson.
Having friction in a budget system was a sign of good governance according to Christianson. “There is friction in the operation of any budget system that is effective, because the budget is a brake,” noted Christianson.
As Governor, Christianson defended the reorganization of state government and the budget reform as essential taxpayer protection. In reference to the Budget Board and the review of spending he argued that “after all the only power the governor has under this system that he didn’t before is the power to save the taxpayers’ money, and unless somebody has that power and exercises it, it is a sure thing that the interests of the taxpayer are not going to be served.”
Christianson argued that reforming state government by making it leaner was a good policy, but it was even more important to make it more difficult for government to spend taxpayer dollars. He stated that “it is not necessary to have three or four inspectors do the work that one can do,” adding, “It is not necessary to have 92 separate and distinct departments, boards, and bureaus operating in Minnesota when a smaller number would do as well.”
Governor Christianson argued that government reform also included “a careful pre-audit of all expenditures; by mass purchases of materials and supplies instead of piecemeal buying by department heads; by vigilant scrutiny of expense accounts, and by resistance to every effort to increase governmental activity unnecessarily.”
He also argued that limiting government included not just the prevention of the growth of bureaucracy, but also more government workers. “The tendency to increase personnel, the bane of every government as well as of every business institution has been checked,” noted Christianson.
From Christianson’s perspective, government was not always the solution to every policy problem, stating, “It is not necessary to create a new board or bureau to take care of every situation that can possibly arise especially in view of the fact that there are so many things that individuals can do so much better for themselves than any board or bureau can do for them.”
Governor Christianson told legislators that “upon reflection you will find that most of the measures I shall propose today are needed only because of legislative errors of the past.” A major reason he fought against efforts to increase government was that it was not only bad policy, but it created an endless cycle in the growth of government. Christianson understood progressivism.
Christianson was prophetic in this regard. “Paternalism furnishes the stuff it feeds on. Governmental interference today sets into motion forces which necessitate more governmental interference tomorrow. After the vicious circle has been started, it is almost impossible to find a stopping point,” argued Christianson. It was this very idea that he advised the legislature that it should “make you more loath to pass laws and me more reluctant to approve them.”
As Governor, Christianson was unafraid to exercise his executive power, especially regarding the use of the veto. As governor, Christianson was the first executive to use the veto power extensively to limit spending. During his 1926 campaign, he celebrated his use of the veto that in one year — 1925 — saved taxpayers over $1.8 million. During the 1929 legislative session, Christianson vetoed three appropriations that accounted for over $15 million. These are just a few examples of his vetoes which totaled 76 during his time in office saving taxpayers close to $18 million.
In his Farewell Address, Governor Christianson stated that the use of the veto helped in the reduction of state spending. “The reduction of state spending was accomplished by the veto of appropriation items…,”argued Christianson.
Christianson understood the pressure to spend money even on worthwhile projects and causes. This also included the demand for more public infrastructure spending. Nevertheless, he argued that “there has been likewise a tendency toward making too many and too elaborate public improvements, improvements which, however desirable, are beyond what the people can afford.”
He argued that the executive branch should have more power “to limit and prevent the expenditure of public money” and that both the governor and the legislature had a responsibility to control spending. Christianson stated, “Giving the Executive power to limit expenditures in no wise relieves the Legislature of responsibility to hold down appropriations. The Legislature from time immemorial has been the taxpayer’s last line of defense. Its power to limit or withhold revenue it must not and cannot relinquish.” Although the Legislature often clashed with Christianson over his use of the veto it was successful in limiting spending.
Since Minnesota at this time did not have an income tax and relied on property taxes and other taxes Christianson argued that a fiscal conservative policy agenda should serve as an example for local governments to lower their property taxes. “Economy in state government should set an example for communities,” stated Christianson.
Governor Christianson argued that in order to have tax relief, spending must be reduced at both the state and local levels. “There can be no reduction of the tax load, however, if state thrift is offset by increased local spending,” stated Christianson. “Economy in government” was needed at both the state and local levels if tax relief was to be achieved.
“It is apparent, therefore, that economy at the State Capitol, although salutary as an example, will not result in tax relief unless accompanied by local retrenchment,” noted Christianson. He lamented the fact that local governments did not do more to limit spending and reduce property taxes. “If local units of government had followed the example of the state and had reduced tax levies in the same proportion, the tax burden of the people of Minnesota would” significantly lower.
The New York Times reported toward the end of his time in office that Christianson has made tax relief a “chief undertaking of his administration.” Like President Coolidge, he argued that following “economy in government” and lowering taxes would benefit everyone in the economy.
Christianson stated, “The best thing the State of Minnesota can do for the farmer, the laborer, or any other man, is to relieve him, so far as it may be done, of the burdens it has imposed on him. Reduce taxes, and farms will yield a larger net return. Reduce taxes, and the manufacturer can make goods, and the merchant sell them at a lower price, and the laborer’s wage will have greater purchasing power.”
Throughout his time in office, Christianson considered the “interests of the taxpayers as of higher value than the wishes of the tax-spenders.” The principles of lowering tax rates, reducing spending, reducing debt, and making state government more efficient are all policies that lead to making a state more competitive.
Christianson said that the question of taxes was more than just money. “There is more involved in the problem of taxation than the money which we as taxpayers must pay, there is involved nothing less than the perpetuity of our social order, for if the superstructure becomes too heavy for the human civilization is doomed.”
In his 1931 Farewell Address, Governor Christian told the legislature that “it has been my belief that one of the best ways in which a government can serve the people is to make the burdens it imposes upon them as light as possible.” Christianson reminded the legislature that he was “elected in the first place upon a pledge of economy.”
As evidence he pointed out that state taxes had “been reduced by over 13 percent,” and that “tax reduction has been made possible by checking the increase in legislative appropriations and reducing state indebtedness.” In addition, he noted that “there has been a reduction of 80 percent in the indebtedness of the state payable by the general taxpayer.” Christianson argued that tax relief was only possible as a result of limiting spending and reducing debt.
For Christianson limiting spending and reducing debt could not be compromised when it came to fiscal policy. Both worked together. “That there cannot be any effective tax reduction in this country until we eliminate public indebtedness or at least reduce its volume,” argued Christianson. The same truth applied to limiting spending.
Christianson also warned about the creation of new taxes and tax shifts just to lower existing taxes. “Forty state legislatures now are trying to shift tax burdens from one group of persons to another…They seek to make it more palatable by calling it a replacement tax. There is no assurance that home and property taxes would be reduced and no assurance that once a sales tax was made law the levy would not be increased,” stated Christianson.
Economy in government was a serious issue and Christianson believed that unless restrained spending, taxation, and debt would balloon out of control. “I believe the time has come when we must call a halt to increasing public expenditures and increasing taxation because we have pyramided this burden to the point where it has become so heavy as to seriously threaten the industrial and economic structure of this country,” warned Christianson.
In fact, he was prophetic in his warning. The current trajectory, as Christianson warned would result in what he referred to as government becoming a “superstructure.” “The serious question is, if we continue to build in superstructure upon the foundation of men and women, whether it will not ultimately become so heavy as to break down those human foundations,” stated Christianson.
However, Governor Christianson’s fiscal conservatism was being sent to the political wilderness as a result of the Great Depression. Christianson was replaced by Governor Floyd B. Olson, who was the first Farmer-Labor Party member to be elected governor. Olson was the direct opposite of Christianson, and he blamed “economy in government” for many of the problems. “The burden of the previous governmental policy carried on under the claim of economy has fallen upon us,” stated Olson.
“For a number of years last past by reason of governmental policy carried on under the claim of economy, our state institutions are greatly in need of appropriations for the purpose of repair and enlargement,” stated Olson. With the Great Depression, Olson would not only call for “an increase in state expenditures over those of preceding years,” but he would launch his own progressive reform movement.
Governor Christianson rejected the notion that increasing state spending was the solution to resolve unemployment during the Depression. “The administration has not been impressed by the doctrine that the state should make lavish expenditures for public construction in order to improve economic conditions,” argued Christianson.
In addition, he argued that the “amount of stimulation business would get from an expanded construction program would be too slight to be felt outside of a very limited circle.” Once again Christianson was prophetic as the New Deal economic stimulus programs failed to resolve unemployment.
In our current era Governor Christianson seems obsolete. Fiscal conservatives in both political parties, especially at the national level, are an endangered species. Many would argue that society and our economy have grown too complex for a conservative philosophy of limited government to work. Progressives were of the same mindset during Christianson’s time in office. In 1924 Christianson told Minnesotans that “getting government back to first principles is the biggest political task of the present generation.” This holds true today.
Christianson argued that “good government cannot be reduced to a formula.” In other words, he understood that policy solutions did not have to be overly complex, but they did have to be based upon the principles of limited government.
Reporting the death of Governor Christianson, The Washington Post wrote that he was a “staunch Republican who devoted himself to curbing the mounting cost of state government and reducing state indebtedness.” Governor Theodore Christianson, a champion of limited government in Minnesota, is an example for policymakers today at all levels of government.
“I suspect that what most of you, and I recognize there is a pretty heavy percentage of taxpayers in this audience, are interested in knowing is where this joy riding is going to end. I am frank to say the end hasn’t come yet and the end is not in sight because we know there has been a tremendous increase during the last few years,” stated a pessimistic Christianson to his Cleveland audience. The ”joy riding” of government spending continues. Whether it is the $38 trillion national debt or the 108 percent increase in Iowa property tax collections over the past 20 years. Christianson understood the cause, government spending, and without limiting spending the situation would only deteriorate.
Print a PDF